This blog is mainly about the spectacular train wreck at The Sacramento Bee and its parent company, the McClatchy Company. But I also post about current events, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, politics, anything else that grabs my attention. Take a look around this blog, hope you enjoy it.

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

McClatchy stock price closing in on $1 a share (updated)

McClatchy (MNI) shares surged upward Wednesday -- getting as high as 96 cents a share before noon EST -- before drifting downward to close the day at 84 cents a share. McClatchy has gained 35 percent over the past month.

Yesterday I pointed out basketcase newspaper stock Lee Communications was heading back up to $1 a share... looks like MNI could follow suit.

..Ah, but fantasy is where they live. McClutsy can lose market share, lose advertising share, lose their ass for years and, MIRACLE, they live ! Before you celebrate Easter in the west, take a deep sniff....the body still rots, MNI is still d-e-a-d man walking.

This is not shorts covering. That would be a "1 day" rally, not a 1 week rally.

Also, they don't do it on just "random" days. They do it at the end of the month when margin calls. Plus these are large blocks of shares that most normal investors cannot afford, so it is more like institutional investors buying/selling to one another.

They also do not have to "manipulate" the price as they still have 8 months to come into compliance. It does the company no good to manipulate it just to meet compliance. They could just reverse split to drive the price up...much easier, and much more legal.

When you look at this it is a broad rally on all of the major newspaper properties. There is someone or some major mutual fund betting that these stocks have been battered enough and now is the time to get back in. Murdoch was talking about his properties going digital and charging for content today in an article I read on Drudge.

You never look at the short-term. This is a rally but in a month most of these stocks could be where they were before. If they continue to lose revenue the stock will continue to be punished.

Written by Steve Rose,Publisher, Johnson County Sun Wednesday, 06 May 2009

The Kansas City Star has a liberal bent.The New York Times has an even more liberal bent.Ipso facto, the reason both newspapers are in economic trouble, according to vocal right-wingers, is because both are sinful in their ways, and this is their punishment.Bill O'Reilly never misses the opportunity to pound away at his belief that the reason newspapers and television network news are on the decline is because their news is liberally slanted, and thus, audiences and advertisers have abandoned them. He pontificates from Fox News, which has been immensely successful, not because it is slanted to the right, but because it is in-your-face, extremely entertaining news. Let's get the facts straight. Metropolitan daily newspapers are not losing readership. They are losing print readership. Add their online readers to their print readers, and there is an actual increase in the number of eyeballs who get their news from their daily newspaper, in one form or the other. It's just that newspapers cannot figure out how to make money from their free online readership. But just as important, conservative newspapers are losing print readers and subscribers just as fast as their more liberal brethren. The New York Times may be losing money, but the conservative New York Post has never made money and is subsidized by its egotistical owner, Rupert Murdoch.That's the same Rupert who just bought The Wall Street Journal, which has one of the most conservative editorial pages in America. It, too, is suffering from sharp advertising declines.The liberal Boston Globe may close down, due to horrific losses. But the conservative Boston Herald is laying off staff left and right and is in peril itself.You could put Newt Gingrich in charge of The New York Times, and let him choose all the editorials and hire all the news staff, and you could put Sam Brownback in as publisher of The Kansas City Star and let him handpick his staff, and, business-wise, nothing would change at either newspaper. They would both be hurting. The challenges would remain the same: People are deserting print for the Internet; readers are placing classified advertisements free on Craigslist; the decline of retail advertising is mostly a result of the consolidation of stores; and there are a mushrooming number of news outlets. Conservatives are licking their chops at the demise of the liberal media - often the major media - with an arrogance that is misplaced. They should be concerned that the nation's major media are shrinking or disappearing. With them go major news gathering operations that will be extremely difficult to replace. What is really frightening is that, if you believe the bloggers, right-wingers would rather have no major media at all than to have media that might not be slanted their way.

...2:39 " the same Rupert who just bought the Wall Street Journal " ...Newscorp bought the WSJ in 2007. Steve Rose and the Anonymutt who posted this editorial don't seem to know the difference between History and News. You guys lie to yourselves...you're lost.

"Where is your basis for saying that I have no understanding in the markets?" ... "When you make baseless accusations you should have information ready to back up your statement."

The truth is I didn't want to embarrass you by pointing out your glaring fundamental misunderstanding of market functions.

I believe that you can keep your book, I still have my text books from my CFA certification. (yes, I do this for a living) They're dusty but we have continuing education.

Ok, if you insist on evidence.

There is no such thing as a one day rally and MNI has not undergone a one week rally.

You go on to confuse short covering with options and make the claim that shorts do not cover on "Random Days" but at the end of the month.

Anyone with a basic working knowledge of the markets knows that Short Selling Common Shares and Options are not remotely related in any way. Short Selling has absolutely nothing to do with Options Expiration. A short seller can cover at any time they wish and can indeed be forced to cover at anytime after the grace period when shares are withdrawn by the lender.

Next you say, "Plus these are large blocks of shares that most normal investors cannot afford, so it is more like institutional investors buying/selling to one another."

In response I offer that yesterday and today's total volume represented a grand total of less than 5 million dollars and they were RETAIL trades. The entire volume is hardly out of the reach of any number of individuals. A simple look at Time/Sales would have told you this. These were not institutional swaps and only a small portion were before hours or during settlement.

Is this basis enough for you? I could go on and explain the anatomy of an event based short squeeze and the details that are detrimental to holding shorts on penny stocks under the proposals presented to the SEC.

Steve ... you speak the truth. It's amazing how many of the vocal in this blog don't admit it. I guess it makes them uncomfortable ... that the basis for their outrage may, in fact, be baseless. Or largely so.

McClatchy Stock Performance

Shop at Amazon

Finalist - Best Up And Coming Blog

McClatchy Watch is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.